[Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.

[Robert Wilson]

Hi,

Sorry to be late, I've been looking at a technical problem with the built-in car diagnostics bus and recently had a break through. My comments are inserted in your note:

> From: corbbo at gmail.com
> To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:07:42 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> I've been quietly reading this list for several months. But I have a  
> question. You mention that the data (the NHTSA report, I believe?)  
> don't show that there are enough incidents between pedestrians and  
> quiet cars to merit a 100% minimum sound standard.

Correct. In fact it turns out to be a general purpose approach that allows early detection of problem vehicles without regard to the make and model. I plan to run the analysis from 1995 to the most recent NHTSA FARS data, which should include the 2009 soon. 

>..so instead we  
> should target the "danger points" -- turn signals, backup, etc. But  
> the data aren't complete. 

I know it seems contradictory but let me explain what "Incident of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles" DOT HW 811 204 can and can not do. This report took the count of hybrid and an equivalent non-hybrid or gas car incidents, the injury counts, which typically are more than five times the rate of fatalities and summed them up over the study interval 2001-07. But it did not count the number of hybrids and gas vehicles in the study area, just the incidents. This means there is no way to assert a relative risk of injury per type of vehicle. Let me give an example:

If there were 75 hybrid incidents and 750 hybrids, there would be one injury for every 10 hybrids by dividing 75 incidents by 750 hybrids. If there were 3,519 gas incidents and 35,190 gas cars, there would also be one injury for every 10 gas cars. But what if there were twice as many hybrids in the pool, 1,500, without changing the number of gas cars? 

In this case, the hybrid accident rate would be only one injury for every 20 hybrids, 75 divided by 1500, or twice as safe as the gas cars that remain at one injury for every 10 gas cars. I did a similar analysis for fatalities of the Prius between 2001 and 2007 and found the Prius has half the USA fatality rate at the USA fleet reported by the NHTSA.

By misinterpreting the data from DOT HW 811 204, we are blind to the vehicles that are causing higher fatality and injury rates. This is why a false killer accusation is doubly bad because not only is an innocent being accused but folks stop looking for the real killer(s). Sad to say, I saw Sen. Kerry claim 'hybrids have twice the hazard' when he supported the Senate substitute bill that includes the Stearns language.

But DOT HW 811 204 does have utility in suggesting (the numbers are terribly small,) that backing and turning incidents within the hybrid incidents are relatively high. The flaw was straight line incidents where hybrids are relatively safe, was ignored. Both turning and backing incidents are associated with what today are silent, warning lights. What is maddening is there is a relay 'click' in the cabin and the Prius has a beep within the cabin. For technical reasons, I believe the relay click, colocated to these 'silent' lights makes a lot of sense for all vehicles, not just hybrids. But even DOT HW 811 204 does not support a claim that straight-line hybrids need noise.

> . . . Imagine this: I'm a blind person walking to  
> work. I'm walking down the sidewalk when all of a sudden I hear brakes  
> to my right, look closely, and see a car a few inches from my cane.  
> After giving a dirty look (and maybe thumbs down?) to the driver who  
> has floored their car out of a parking garage without mind for  
> potential pedestrians, I go on my way. The data aren't likely to show  
> this incident. 

Actually the same data that is being misquoted by Sen. Kerry also says the hybrids in a straight line are safer than the gas car.

> . . . Some luck saved my cane -- and probably me -- from a  
> collision. I didn't stop to write down the license plate, make, model,  
> etc. (nevermind that I probably couldn't see well enough to do that on  
> my own anyway), and there's nothing to do with the info other than  
> report a close-call to this group. Are you saying that we need more  
> violent incidents before we should require a minimum sound standard  
> for cars? 

I think we need to use the available data to identify the real killer cars ... the ones whose fatality rate is higher than the national pool. More importantly, it needs to be done as soon as possible after a new model is introduced instead of waiting until the annual rate makes it impossible to ignore the obvious. So let me ask you the same question, slightly differently.

Do you think it is better to let killer cars get a pass while legislating noise makers on the Prius that has half the fatality rate?

> . . . You don't seem like somebody who would think that, but  
> that's the essence of my question...blunt as it may be.

Actually, my question is double-blunt because we have the NHTSA FARS data needed to identify killer cars. Sad to say, DOT HW 811 204 has been abused to assert a conclusion not supported by the evidence, the facts and data. So far, the Prius appears to have half the fatality rate of the USA fleet, which means there are killer cars out there and in this effort, being ignored. Those are the cars you'll hit with your cane . . . if you are still able.

Bob Wilson

> 
> Corbb
> 
> On Jun 6, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Robert Wilson wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> > Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:33:31 -0400
> > From: mrtownsend at optonline.net
> > To: quietcars at nfbnet.org
> > Subject: Re: [Quietcars] Passenger defeatable systems.
> >
> > This seems like a possible idea.  However, Bob, if people carry these
> > devices, who's going to pay for them,
> 
> Today, we get two normal fobs. I see the safety fob being part of the  
> the standard equipment list for all new cars, much like any other  
> piece of safety equipment because it lets both the driver, pedestrian  
> and by-standers know there is an at-risk pedestrian in the area. One  
> alternative is the ability to reprogram a standard fob into a safety  
> fob. Issue three fobs with one configured as a safety fob.
> 
> I've bought fobs for the NHW11 and NHW20 along with a keyless  
> development system to more fully understand the technology. Lesson's  
> learned: (1) the fobs are microprocessor controlled, which is critical  
> for vehicle operation but makes them unusually flexible; (2) the data  
> rates are modest but easily decipherable and; the small 1x2 inch or  
> smaller boards have very few parts, very cheap to produce.
> 
> I don't underestimate the technical challenges of making a practical,  
> universal safety fob but  seat belts and air bags had resistance and  
> development challenges too. Sad to say, the language of the Stearns  
> amendment all but rules this approach out. Otherwise, I and a few  
> others would be pretty busy right now.
> 
> > . . . how does one go about applying to
> > receive one, prove that they actually need one and
> 
> The owner has the option of either keeping for their own use, say a  
> pre-school child or elderly family member, or letting the dealer  
> donate to a local service organization.
> 
> > . . . who is going to carry out
> > the testing of such devices on a periodic basis to ensure that they  
> > are
> > working as hoped.
> 
> The safety fob is tested by walking outside. The receiver operation is  
> automatic and built-in to the vehicle. As for the horn bleep, testing  
> would be needed but such testing should include more of a click versus  
> even the muted bleep of the Volt. As newer vehicles come into the  
> fleet, they would increase the population and because they are 'on  
> demand,' even older vehicle drivers could hear the warning from the  
> newer cars. In contrast, the constant noise generator becomes "the boy  
> who cried wolf."
> 
> Bob Wilson
> 		 	   		
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from  
> your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
> _______________________________________________
> Quietcars mailing list
> Quietcars at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
> Quietcars:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/corbbo%40gmail.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Quietcars mailing list
> Quietcars at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/quietcars_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Quietcars:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/quietcars_nfbnet.org/bwilson4web%40hotmail.com
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5